SUSHEELA AMMA Vs. VILLAGE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayers in the above Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows.

(2.) Heard Sri.B.Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.M.R.Dhanil, learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents 1 to 3. In the nature of the orders proposed to be passed in this petition, notice to contesting respondents 4 to 6 will stand dispensed with.

(3.) Shorn of all the details of the facts of this case it can be seen that what was basically under challenge in Ext.P-5 WP(C).No.2056 of 2012 filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners and later continued to be prosecuted by them after the death of the predecessor, was the legality and correctness of the impugned order therein (Ext.P-8 therein) rendered by the competent authority on the application of the contesting respondent No.4 therein Lakshmi ( predecessor-in-interest of contesting respondents 4 to 6 herein) for restoration of the land in question under the provisions contained in Section 5 of the Kerala Restriction on Transfer by and Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act , 1999. This Court in Ext.P-5 judgment after elaborate consideration of various factual issues have found that the very case set up by the contesting respondent No.4 therein was that the property was only granted on oral lease basis to the predecessor- in-interest of the petitioners herein and that later the said R-4 could get back the possession of said property. Whereas the case set up by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners herein was to effect that they have secured lawful title in respect of the property in question but that the contesting respondent therein (predecessor-in-interest of the contesting respondents herein) had unlawfully trespassed and thus secured illegal possession of the said property and that they have filed civil suits seeking injunction and recovery of the possession of the said property etc.